Sally, to your comment about the 2000 U.S. election (Bush v. Gore) and the loss to the climate change movement, I'll add: In 1980, Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan. Carter was convinced of the need for renewable energy and had 32 solar panels installed on the White House roof. They were taken down during the Reagan administration--in 1986, 2 years before James Hansen testified to Congress.
Yes, think of the years lost . . . and the cost to the planet.
Thanks Susan - I didnt know about Carter - so forward thinking. I get depressed about the politics around solar in the US - I read that in Arizona which has 300+ sunny days a year, fewer people are opting to invest in solar panels for their homes because of the installation costs and reduced rates they get for exporting energy - bizarre given the ACs are on during the day?
Thanks for the link - as you say so complicated but such a shame and very different to the European approach - solar panels are getting cheaper and more efficient so installation costs falling, it's the batteries that cost. For us, we don't have batteries yet as our biggest draw is our large freezer and it works hardest on warm sunny days and any surplus goes back into grid at a reasonable rate agreed 10 years ago - we have a 25 yr contract and it pays us for 50% of all energy generated regardless of how much we actually use.
Sally, to your comment about the 2000 U.S. election (Bush v. Gore) and the loss to the climate change movement, I'll add: In 1980, Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan. Carter was convinced of the need for renewable energy and had 32 solar panels installed on the White House roof. They were taken down during the Reagan administration--in 1986, 2 years before James Hansen testified to Congress.
Yes, think of the years lost . . . and the cost to the planet.
Thanks Susan - I didnt know about Carter - so forward thinking. I get depressed about the politics around solar in the US - I read that in Arizona which has 300+ sunny days a year, fewer people are opting to invest in solar panels for their homes because of the installation costs and reduced rates they get for exporting energy - bizarre given the ACs are on during the day?
It's complicated. More here https://www.kjzz.org/kjzz-news/2024-08-23/arizona-isnt-a-solar-leader-this-advocate-explains-why Similar situation in TX, where I am.
Thanks for the link - as you say so complicated but such a shame and very different to the European approach - solar panels are getting cheaper and more efficient so installation costs falling, it's the batteries that cost. For us, we don't have batteries yet as our biggest draw is our large freezer and it works hardest on warm sunny days and any surplus goes back into grid at a reasonable rate agreed 10 years ago - we have a 25 yr contract and it pays us for 50% of all energy generated regardless of how much we actually use.